PatsFans.com - Mobile
PatsFans.com
Search

All-Time QB Rankings / QB Hall of Fame Monitor

2020 Patriots Season:
Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: N/A

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:

chris_in_sunnyvale

In the Starting Line-Up
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
@Ice_Ice_Brady ,this is an outstanding effort no matter what arguments ensue and whatever holes can be punched in your methodology.

I've been mulling doing a similar exercise that's more stats-based, but that understandably opens a huge can of worms. I regret not doing that in 2020 when I mostly had the time.

In my imaginary exercise, I'd put a lot if work in measuring playoff performance in the context of its single elimination format: You didn't just win a SB, but rather you won 3 (or 4) straight games against winning teams. How much of that was the QB, both the wins and losses? For example, in Brady's 12 playoff eliminations, how much of that was on him? Maybe I'd include a WOLAB factor: "Went out like a female dog"...think Manning in SB48 or Montana in the 1986 divisional. Also, a "Went down fighting" factor, like Brady in 2015 or Montana in the 1983 NFCCG.

Keep up the great work.

Regards,
Chris
 

Deus Irae

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club
PatsFans.com Supporter
pretty cool

i still have a hard time placing much weight on 'wins' when looking at QBs......wins are team stats, and i have a hard time letting go of that.....yes, a QB directs an offense that is one of the major components of a teams performance........but.....it's still a team stat
IF wins were simply team stats, they wouldn't follow the QBs. But they do follow the QBs. It's fair to say that there's not a constant 1:1 equation, but it's not fair to say that wins are simply a team stat that aren't in any way pinned to QBs, either.
 
Last edited:

Ice_Ice_Brady

Team Bill's Worst Nightmare
I'm thinking of making a spreadsheet with categories and different quarterbacks numbers in them. Not necessarily a formula to rank them, but I'd like to have all the numbers in front of me so I can then review them and rank accordingly. Any suggestions on what to add/subtract? I have quite a few in mind right now.

1. Super Bowl/NFL Championships
2. Super Bowl/NFL Championship Appearances
3. Playoff Wins
4. Division Championships
5. Regular Season Wins
6. Regular Season Win/Loss %
7. Pro Bowl
8. All-Pro
9. Regular Season MVP
10. Super Bowl MVP
11. 1st Place Offense
12. Top 10 Offense
13. Regular Season 4QC
14. Regular Season GWD
15. Playoff 4QC
16. Playoff GWD
17. Completion % Leader
18. Passing Yard Leader
19. Passing Touchdown Leader
20. Interception % Leader
21. Passer Rating Leader

And the below with context

22. Completion %
23. Passing Yards
24. Touchdowns
25. Interception %
26. TD/INT Ratio
27. Passer Rating

This looks like a great list here...I would add Sacks/Sack%...if there's a downloadabe list (example PFR), I would just download all the data you can get. You could always hide the columns you're not using for now. I've had to go back to my sheet three times already to add additional data, which requires updating 100+ quarterbacks; wish I'd just gotten a huge raw data list.
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

Team Bill's Worst Nightmare
Excellent.

I agree. Peyton is way too high. He played on some Super Bowl -caliber teams and choked in the playoffs way too many times.

What you could do is adjust the weight you assign to columns.

For example, QBs that won get a higher weight than those who won MVPs or had great passer ratings.

That would also push down his brother, Favre, Rogers and Marino down the list where they below.

Now you are separating "Passers" from "Quarterbacks"

Just a thought.

Manning and Marino are the reasons why I've been having trouble cranking up the Windex. Right now, it is weighed towards winning over awards/stats (example: Big Ben over Marino, or right there), but it might not be weighed enough. The problem is: how can you solve the problems of a few outliers first. For example, Manning's Windex is very high, so cranking up everyone's Windex might just give someone like Montana or Starr a small edge over Manning, but down the list you see Eli move way up, Big Ben move ahead of Marino, and guys like Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton, take a huge tumble.

I think I'm going to try to solve the outlier problems first:

Manning
I don't love playoff win percentage for for a few reasons; being 3-5 is better than being 2-3, and playoff win% is usually a small sample size. The worst part is you get the Flaccos and Elis who aren't good enough to make the playoffs, so when they actually do, it just means they have a great supporting cast. At the same time, it's clear from the feedback (and my own belief) that there isn't enough of that "winner" factor, even with the Super Bowls weighted. I think I'm going to create a Playoff Win/Loss differential, which might be a compromise.

At 14-13, Manning +1; Brady is +23; Marino is -2; Favre; Roethlisberger +4. If I then multiplied by something like .2, it would look something like this:

Manning - 0.2
Brady - 4.6
Marino - minus-0.2
Roethlisberger - 0.8
Montana - 1.8
Eli - 0.8
Favre - 0.0

This way, it doesn't penalize Manning against guys who don't win playoff games to begin with, it doesn't overly reward guys like Eli and Ben (who you don't want to double dip) but you do get a pretty big swing between Montana and Manning. We already have playoff wins at a 0.25 reward, so this bascially another differential equation where half of it is efficiency and half is total.
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

Team Bill's Worst Nightmare
@Ice_Ice_Brady ,this is an outstanding effort no matter what arguments ensue and whatever holes can be punched in your methodology.

I've been mulling doing a similar exercise that's more stats-based, but that understandably opens a huge can of worms. I regret not doing that in 2020 when I mostly had the time.

In my imaginary exercise, I'd put a lot if work in measuring playoff performance in the context of its single elimination format: You didn't just win a SB, but rather you won 3 (or 4) straight games against winning teams. How much of that was the QB, both the wins and losses? For example, in Brady's 12 playoff eliminations, how much of that was on him? Maybe I'd include a WOLAB factor: "Went out like a female dog"...think Manning in SB48 or Montana in the 1986 divisional. Also, a "Went down fighting" factor, like Brady in 2015 or Montana in the 1983 NFCCG.

Keep up the great work.

Regards,
Chris

That sounds like an awesome project. I'd love to see something like that; it would be a huge task to go through so many games, but it would be worth it just to revisit all the lore.
 

RobertWeathers

Chairman & CEO of Team Bill
Manning and Marino are the reasons why I've been having trouble cranking up the Windex. Right now, it is weighed towards winning over awards/stats (example: Big Ben over Marino, or right there), but it might not be weighed enough. The problem is: how can you solve the problems of a few outliers first. For example, Manning's Windex is very high, so cranking up everyone's Windex might just give someone like Montana or Starr a small edge over Manning, but down the list you see Eli move way up, Big Ben move ahead of Marino, and guys like Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton, take a huge tumble.

I think I'm going to try to solve the outlier problems first:

Manning
I don't love playoff win percentage for for a few reasons; being 3-5 is better than being 2-3, and playoff win% is usually a small sample size. The worst part is you get the Flaccos and Elis who aren't good enough to make the playoffs, so when they actually do, it just means they have a great supporting cast. At the same time, it's clear from the feedback (and my own belief) that there isn't enough of that "winner" factor, even with the Super Bowls weighted. I think I'm going to create a Playoff Win/Loss differential, which might be a compromise.

At 14-13, Manning +1; Brady is +23; Marino is -2; Favre; Roethlisberger +4. If I then multiplied by something like .2, it would look something like this:

Manning - 0.2
Brady - 4.6
Marino - minus-0.2
Roethlisberger - 0.8
Montana - 1.8
Eli - 0.8
Favre - 0.0

This way, it doesn't penalize Manning against guys who don't win playoff games to begin with, it doesn't overly reward guys like Eli and Ben (who you don't want to double dip) but you do get a pretty big swing between Montana and Manning. We already have playoff wins at a 0.25 reward, so this bascially another differential equation where half of it is efficiency and half is total.
Eli Manning is the biggest freaking anomaly in playoff sports history.
 

Boston Boxer

U.S. Air Force Retired
PatsFans.com Supporter
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
this is a great project and i applaud your effort. I have a hard time ranking players (QBs) from different eras. Could George Bland put up the number he did in 2020? rules are different as the decades go on and players are basically machines now versus when they used to smoke cigarettes on the sidelines.

I appreciate the effort on this and understand their is probably not a perfect way to do this. Certainly thought provoking
 

chris_in_sunnyvale

In the Starting Line-Up
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
That sounds like an awesome project. I'd love to see something like that; it would be a huge task to go through so many games, but it would be worth it just to revisit all the lore.
On the postseason stuff, the biggest problem is that play-by-play info isn't reliably available before circa 2000. Analyzing games before that comes down to whatever box scores, YouTube videos and archived articles on the games exist. But it's fun, and revealing in that reality often is a stark contrast to the lore...so many close calls not just for the Brady Pats, but for other teams as well. Winning 3 (or 4) straight often requires the QB to come up huge in at least one of the games, but also the rest of the team in perhaps others...think 2001 AFCCG where special teams scored 2 TDs and the D clung on to dear life as Pittsburgh closed the gap while Bledsoe was hitting Joey Porter in the hands for a dropped pick 6. This applies to most champions, too.

Brady's biggest value may be that he was so good that he gave his team a fighting chance in almost every game, a "keep it close" factor of sorts so the other things in the games could either be overcome or tipped things in their favor. He did this to the tune of 7 titles in 19 years as a starter...by far the best, but also shows how hard winning is. He's a "loser" more than he's a winner.

Regards,
Chris
 

Deus Irae

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club
PatsFans.com Supporter
this is a great project and i applaud your effort. I have a hard time ranking players (QBs) from different eras. Could George Bland put up the number he did in 2020? rules are different as the decades go on and players are basically machines now versus when they used to smoke cigarettes on the sidelines.
One of the things that I like to do is to picture the players swapping eras, but I like to take modern players and toss them back into earlier decades. Imagine, for example, a guy who's making it big in the NFL today because his frame has allowed him to take full advantage of modern training, but who requires constant maintenance to stay at that level, being put back in 1960. We see a lot of this with the OL and DL, where players retire and either become big fatties or vastly smaller human beings. Or guys of today who we can just see are so soft that they'd fold under the more violent forms of the sports in earlier times.
 

chris_in_sunnyvale

In the Starting Line-Up
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
I also think it's natural for biases to skew towards modern QBs. The sophistication in passing offenses, the specialization in defensive substitution patterns, the game planning against offenses and QBs in particular have all gotten better year after year, learning from past mistakes and successes. So much more falls on the QB than ever before.

Could a legend from the old days, even with today's advantages in training, video review, etc. read a modern-day nickel D in real time and make the correct throw against a much faster D than what they played against? Could a naturally gifted athlete like John Elway go back to then, lose the benefits of modern training, etc. and light up the teams of those days and win titles in the process? He went to 5 SBs and won 2. I don't think it's a stretch to say he could. I'm not sure about the former scenario, though.

Regards,
Chris
 

yukon cornelius

In the Starting Line-Up
IF wins were simply team stats, they wouldn't follow the QBs. But they do follow the QBs. It's fair to say that there's not a constant 1:1 equation, but it's not fair to say that wins are simply a team stat that aren't in any way pinned to QBs, either.
are they pinned to kickers who kick a game winning FG?

are they pinned to the '85 bears defense?

i know they ARE pinned to QB's......i just don't agree to it

are their times and teams where the QB bears more of the responsibility for the success.....sure.....just like there are times they bear too much of the blame, or really DIDN'T contribute any more to the win than any other player, or even less

but was trent dilfer's record really 10-1 with the Ravens in 2000.......or did the Ravens win 10 of 11 with Dilfer in at QB........

it's just a hard number to quantify, and to attribute wins as a stat to a QB imho doesn't really hold up that well

you HAVE to use team success and playoff success as a means to quantify who's the greatest, I guess...........but to simply say QB Y's record was 100-82 is a gross over simplification of the game

hell, i've seen very, very compelling arguments why wins shouldn't be a starting pitcher stat, and they have a way, way more influence on the outcome of a game than a QB does

just a pet peeve of mine.........doesn't take away from a very interesting tool
 

Joker

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
I also think it's natural for biases to skew towards modern QBs. The sophistication in passing offenses, the specialization in defensive substitution patterns, the game planning against offenses and QBs in particular have all gotten better year after year, learning from past mistakes and successes. So much more falls on the QB than ever before.

Could a legend from the old days, even with today's advantages in training, video review, etc. read a modern-day nickel D in real time and make the correct throw against a much faster D than what they played against? Could a naturally gifted athlete like John Elway go back to then, lose the benefits of modern training, etc. and light up the teams of those days and win titles in the process? He went to 5 SBs and won 2. I don't think it's a stretch to say he could. I'm not sure about the former scenario, though.

Regards,
Chris
Roger Staubach could have played and won in today's NFL. Stabler, Marino etc...these QB's read defenses quickly and released the ball as fast or faster than 90% of the QB's today. You have to remember, it was a different, much more violent league for QB's until Crapdell/Polian ruined the rules.
 

chris_in_sunnyvale

In the Starting Line-Up
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
Roger Staubach could have played and won in today's NFL. Stabler, Marino etc...these QB's read defenses quickly and released the ball as fast or faster than 90% of the QB's today. You have to remember, it was a different, much more violent league for QB's until Crapdell/Polian ruined the rules.
I have little to no doubts about the QBs you mentioned. I was thinking back to the 1930s-60s. Passing offenses way back when were rudimentary to what we see in the 70s, let alone now.

Regards,
Chris
 

Deus Irae

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club
PatsFans.com Supporter
are they pinned to kickers who kick a game winning FG?

are they pinned to the '85 bears defense?

i know they ARE pinned to QB's......i just don't agree to it
Wins follow good QBs. That's just the reality of the NFL. It's not a 1:1 equivalence, and it's not even at the NBA level, but it's obvious to see. You can find bad-to-mediocre QBs winning SBs in a given year, and you can find elite QBs having sub .500 records in a given year. But, like pretty much everything in sports, that's because exceptions happen. Just look at the guys considered to be the best QBs in recent years:


Brady - Wins
Manning - Wins
Rodgers - Wins
Brees - Wins
Wilson - Wins
Mahomes - Wins
Roethlisberger - Wins



They all win. They don't win every game. They don't even win every year. But, for the vast majority of their careers, they win.
 

Pat the Pats Fan

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
ice ice, nice worksheet, a lot of work and thought went into it.
Where did you accumulate the data?
? Johnny U played in 5 championship games, winning 3. 58, 59 and 64 NFL Championships and SB3 and 5
 

chris_in_sunnyvale

In the Starting Line-Up
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
Another factor in the "winning" stat is when they lost, to whom did they lose? For example, Steve Young may be the most snake-bitten QB when it came to titles. The 1990s 49ers were the "dynasty that could have been", except standing in their way was a loaded Cowboys team in the first half of the decade and the prime Brett Favre Packers in the second half. The Montana 49ers rarely had to go up against a juggernaut and when they did, it showed (*cough* 49-3 *cough*).

Regards,
Chris
 

Steve:Section 102

A lion isn't concerned with the opinion of sheep
Another factor in the "winning" stat is when they lost, to whom did they lose? For example, Steve Young may be the most snake-bitten QB when it came to titles. The 1990s 49ers were the "dynasty that could have been", except standing in their way was a loaded Cowboys team in the first half of the decade and the prime Brett Favre Packers in the second half. The Montana 49ers rarely had to go up against a juggernaut and when they did, it showed (*cough* 49-3 *cough*).

Regards,
Chris
The same could be said about Manning and NE standing in his way.
 

chris_in_sunnyvale

In the Starting Line-Up
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
I'm thinking of making a spreadsheet with categories and different quarterbacks numbers in them. Not necessarily a formula to rank them, but I'd like to have all the numbers in front of me so I can then review them and rank accordingly. Any suggestions on what to add/subtract? I have quite a few in mind right now.

1. Super Bowl/NFL Championships
2. Super Bowl/NFL Championship Appearances
3. Playoff Wins
4. Division Championships
5. Regular Season Wins
6. Regular Season Win/Loss %
7. Pro Bowl
8. All-Pro
9. Regular Season MVP
10. Super Bowl MVP
11. 1st Place Offense
12. Top 10 Offense
13. Regular Season 4QC
14. Regular Season GWD
15. Playoff 4QC
16. Playoff GWD
17. Completion % Leader
18. Passing Yard Leader
19. Passing Touchdown Leader
20. Interception % Leader
21. Passer Rating Leader

And the below with context

22. Completion %
23. Passing Yards
24. Touchdowns
25. Interception %
26. TD/INT Ratio
27. Passer Rating
I'd add: % of offense (e.g. QB accounted for x% of total offensive yards). Adds some semblance of context for "game manager" vs. "carried the offense".

I'd also add 3rd down conversion %, maybe weigh it less to account for runs that got the conversion. IMO, 3rd down is generally a QB-centric down and is often the difference between punting vs. scoring.

Regards,
Chris
 

Top